INTERNATIONAL ISSUE

2005
INTERACTING ARTS is one or all of the following: a group of cross-disci-
plinary artists, media critics, an activist network, a conspiracy, a brand,
a think-tank and a magazine which is circulated both on the web and in
print. We aim to inspire and activate people into becoming our fellow
creators of fully lived and experienced lives. Our theories are nothing
other than the theories of our real life and of the possibilities experienced
or perceived in it. We strive to coordinate our refusal of existential pov-
erty through affirmation of creativity, co-operation, solidarity, play and
our blistering desire for freedom.

More of this wonderful madness at http://interactingarts.org

Get in touch with fellow creators at http://interactingarts.org/forum/
Give us feedback or contributions at editor@interactingarts.org

CONTENT
Spectator or participant? 4
Simulacra Warfare 10
Postmodernity and participation 14

Urban Samurai 18
Interactivist 19
Anarchitect 20
Urban Explorer 21
Netpunk 22
Nomad 23
Chameleon 24

INERACTING ARTS – INTERNATIONAL ISSUE 2005

editorial staff: kristoffer haggren, elge larsson, christoffer lindahl, andie
nordgren, leo nordwall, gabriel widing | illustrators: mathias elftorp (7),
ulrika linder (3, 15), josefin rasmuson(1), henrik zetterman (18-24, 26) |
thanks to puh for translations | publisher responsible & layout: gabriel
widing | content without explicit originator is produced by the editors|
printed at SVEROK stockholm|

2
 tor?
d irec
h e
st

i
ho
W

tw

ho
e, bu

wrote
a stag

you
rc
orld’s

ar

h
ac
ter
?
All the w

During the course of life, we assume roles at all times: the role of being
a student, being a parent, being your gender or simply “being yourself ”.
Most of these roles are not chosen, but assigned to you by means of
expectations, rewards and punishments.
We refuse these assigned roles, and look for allies and methods that
will expose us to different expectations and inspirations.
3
 SPECTATOR OR
PARTICIPANT ARE YOU GIVEN A CHOICE?

It is now centuries since participants of rites turned into spectators, and then it didn’t
take long time until everyone were supposed to sit still and passively watch as religion,
theatre, dance, music, poetry was being performed, and eventually everybody had turned
into viewers of television who willingly let themselves be seduced by sealclubbing, fam-
ine, genocide, and Thrilling Stories, Shocking Pictures, bullet in the head, knife to the
throat, cock in the pussy, and magnificent carpet-bombings (you know, here in Bagdad,
everyone has bomb-carpets now...), we have now returned to the Colosseum where The
Gladiators bounce around with lions and martyrs, and blood flows across the screen
and all the families gather every night with tongues flopping for the vampire-feast.
People say we live in the age of media, but more to the point: we are at the mercy
of media.

WHAT ARE MEDIA?

All media manifest themselves as different forms of suggestions. Films
use the projection of moving images and sounds consisting of speech,
sound effects and music. A book provides the reader with suggestions
in the form of the text itself, but also in forms of typography, illustra-
tions and the very feeling of holding a book. All these elements are sug-
gestions. Principally speaking, suggestions can take any shape or form
whatever: suggestions are the deliberate stimulation of the senses. Our
experiences of different realities consist of suggestions. Every work of
art consists of suggestions, usually put together to provide the recipient
with a certain experience. This line of reasoning suggests that different
subjects have similar ways of interpreting reality. If they didn’t, all works
of art would be meaningless.
A way of distributing suggestions is called a medium - the consen-
sual understanding of how certain suggestions are to be distributed and
recieved. Distribution takes place between a producer and a consumer.
The role of the producer is to create suggestions. The role of the con-
sumer is to experience them. This is a form of one-way communication.
Controlling the shape of suggestions means controlling the experiences

4
of the recipient; the media relationship is always a relation of power.
Media that are based on one-way communication always have au-
thoritarian structures. Recipients can, at best, avoid unwanted sug-
gestions by interrupting the perceptive contact with the medium, or
interpreting suggestions in their own way. Reality is also a medium,
prone to the same relations of power. Who produces the suggestions
in your daily life? Who gave shape to the understandings that govern
how you recieve stimuli from your surroundings?

WHAT IS PARTICIPATORY ARTS?

In spectator arts, the few control which suggestions are to be pro-
duced for the many. For a work of art to be considered participatory,
partakers must be able to produce suggestions. The step from spec-
tator to participant means the democratization of culture, as power
over the means of suggestion is then distributed among the many.
Participatory arts means that whatever suggestions the participants
produce influence what suggestions they recieve, what suggestions
other participants recieve, and how these suggestions affect the pos-
sibilities of continuing interaction. The framework that diminishes
our participation is socially constructed, not dependent on any par-
ticular medium. The medium itself rarely limits our opportunities to
participate, the understanding of how we are to percieve it does. We
could rise up from the spectator seat, climb onto the stage and shout
“to be or not to be!” or spray-paint the paintings in an art gallery, but
we don’t, because we know our place. We are spectators.
To illustrate how various media have different degrees of partici-
pation, we have developed a model of analysis containing three dif-
ferent levels: space of thought, space of choice and space of action.

5
 THE FIRST LEVEL
MENTAL ACROBATICS IN THE SPACE OF THOUGHT
The first level is what we call space of thought; all possible thoughts, con-
notations, and reflections one can associate with the suggestions recieved
from a work of art. This form of “participation” influences and gives
shape to the experience created by these suggestions. A common phrase
about the relation between artwork and spectator is that the “spectator
creates the work”. This means that the work comes into existence when
it reaches the spectator and arouses some kind of reaction.
Fine art makes possible many different kinds of reflections within the
spectator, banal works do not arouse much more than a sense of recogni-
tion. The space of thought consists of all interpretations that are made
possible by the artwork.
Art and artists often make a point of countering one-sidedness and
absolutism, of being open to many interpretations, of enabling a wealth
of different perspectives, nuances and distances. And yes, works of art
that are difficult to access demand a higher degree of mental participa-
tion from the spectator, but the possibility of different interpretations
must never be mistaken for interaction. Interaction requires that sugges-
tions are produced by more than one subject.
This kind of interpretative “participation” or “co-creation” of the
work is an important part of spectator arts, but it doesn’t adress or ex-
plain the difference between spectator and participant since all sugges-
tions produce thoughts and associations. With this kind of definition
of participation, all subjects will always be defined as participants in all
works. In the space of thought, there is room for us all - but the concepts
of “participant” and “spectator” lose their meanings. The first level of
participation doesn’t reach further than our own private experience, and
can never influence the work itself.

THE SECOND LEVEL

MOVEMENTS IN THE SPACE OF CHOICE
The second level of participation takes place in the space of choice. This
space consists of all the different ways in which we as spectators can
choose to recieve suggestions inherent in a work of art. If we are looking
at a sculpture, we can walk around it and view it from different angles.
If we are playing a video game, we can control it by pressing different
buttons. In what is known as hypertext, we can choose between different
alternatives leading us to new texts and new choices in the hyperspace.
If your sole function as a spectator is to choose between which of the
suggestions contained within the work you are to be subjected to, you
are not really partaking in it, rather you are choosing or rejecting parts

6
of a predefined work. If a subject has no information as to the potential
consequences of various decisions, the question of choice is meaningless.
The subject isn’t really making a decision, only picking an alternative,
any which one.
There is an unfortunate misconception that interactivity is the same
as the possibility to choose and reject. It is a lot more than that. A con-
versation, for example is interactive and offers more than just choosing
between different alternatives. If you think that interactivity can be re-
duced to a choice between fixed alternatives, you haven’t fully grasped
the wealth of possibilities interaction has to offer. There are plenty of
media producers who promise interaction, but deliver only choices be-
tween different alternatives. Press a button, and you will be exposed to
our suggestions. Press a different button, and you will be exposed to our
suggestions - isn’t it marvellous?

7
 THE THIRD LEVEL
PRODUCTION OF SUGGESTIONS
IN THE SPACE OF ACTION
The third level of participation is the process in which a subject produces
suggestions for other subjects, and recieves suggestions from them. The
space of action is the plethora of activities one can partake in in order
to create and recieve suggestions. This interaction between participants
is always a process. Suggestions in spectator arts, on the other hand, are
most often echoes from the past. They are rarely created before the very
eyes of the spectator, rather they depict what has already happened. All
photographs that have ever been taken depict the past. The film has
already been recorded when the spectators start filling the theatre seats.
The sculpture has already been given shape when we come to view it.
Theatre plays and performances are, in a way created at the same time
as they are viewed, but they follow a predetermined script that dictates
what will happen.
Since participatory arts mainly take place in the present, it cannot
aspire to create preserved, immortal works that can be viewed by all. It
is instantaneous and transient. The only thing remaining are the expe-
riences of the participants. Granted, one can attempt to recreate the
process with the same or with a new set of participants, but at each new
attempt, both experiences and suggestions will be different.
There are false prophets who try to cater to the need for participation
by offering choises or by claiming that reflection is “participation”. The
children of consumerism greedily swallow the choices presented, lack-
ing the ability to enter the forbidden art scenes themselves; these being
accessible only to certain people. Claiming that not everyone can be an
artist is like saying not everyone can communicate with each other.

Participatory arts open the door to the creativity of everyone

HAGGREN, LARSSON
NORDWALL, WIDING

8
 Medi
a exp
erien
ces do
mina
te ou
r wak
ing h
ours

Most media structures are non

-participatory:
television, books and architechtur
e all follow the
same principle – you watch as
they produce

es
b odi e
le nc
j u stab mina
ad do
g e rly at the re
s
r ea d th c t u
u n
a n d o dema s tru
ds We ia
r min cing. ends m
ed
s ou odu ion of
It i are pr ticipat n
y
the on-pa
r tio
t i sa
of n oc
ra
m
e de
h
n dt
a
d em
e
W

9
In our minds, we all carry an image of reality. To a great extent, this image isn t́ one
we ourselves have created – yet we seldom even recognise these images of reality as some-
thing that has been implanted by different media. Who is in control of your reality?

THE FALSE MIRROR IMAGE

In our daily lives, we actually experience a very small part of reality. We
have breakfast. We ride the bus to work. We live through yet another
day at the office. We meet the same old friends at the café. We take the
bus home. And then we sleep. Even a seasoned traveller has seen very
little of the world and met very few of all the people there are to meet.
Despite our best efforts, we have to face the fact that we cannot experi-
ence enough of reality ourselves, and so we have to trust images and
words that other people provide us with. These images and words are
media. Books, newspapers, television etcetera all serve the same purpose:
they provide us with convenient mental images to digest and integrate
in our personal image of reality. These provided images cover vast areas
of our mental landscapes..
Think of anything outside of your limited daily life and your will ex-
perience a memory of a mediated experience. You probably don’t even
remember when or how the implantation of this memory took place.
Think of a rocket launch. Think of Nepal. Think of a perfect woman.
Think of the jungle. Think of warfare. Unless you have experienced
these things personally, you are thinking of a media image.

FICTIOUS MIMETICS
The role of media today is to create and reinforce something we might
call consensus reality. Everyone (at least everyone who “counts”; i.e. in-
habitants of the western world) have access to these images of reality.
In our culture, they are universal. The weather and common mediated
images are safe subjects to talk about in the company of strangers.
Media shape our reality. It doesn’t really matter whether they present
themselves as “documentary” or “fictious” since many of these images
don’t depict physical places or people, but rather abstract notions of
what “reality” is like.
Think about true love. Think about peace. Think about work. Think

10
about money. Think about the environment. You have images of all
these things in your mind, some of them mediated, some of them from
actual experience. However, people aren’t solitary, but rather influenced
by what other people think. The consequence of these shared images is
that when the personal image of abstract notions differ from the image
presented in media, the mediated image seems to have the support of a
majority, and so the personal understanding becomes the anomaly. If the
images don’t differ, the media image supports the personal understand-
ing. Either way, media has a normalising effect on one’s beliefs.

SIMULACRA ELITISM
A strong tendency of most media is having few producers and many
consumers. The roles are also very strictly defined: even though the
average television viewer might get a once-in-a-lifetime fifteen minutes
appearance in a show, he or she has no control of what goes on air and
what doesn’t. Furthermore, viewers cannot decide whether there should
be any television networks at all... unless this control is seized.
The “few-to-many” media structure is effective in generating profit
when used for mass advertising. This is dependant on having a large
mass of consumers at the recieving end. In order to secure the interest
of as many consumers as possible, mass media have to present images
that as many people as possible find agreeable. Equally important is that
they do not find them objectionable. Anything that questions common
beliefs of “how things are” could cause a loss of consumers and thus
revenue. This makes all mass media conformistic per default.
What’s worse, this tendency is not reactive. That would mean mass
media would operate by trial and error, which it doesn’t. Instead there
are people trying to anticipate reactions to mediated stimuli. What is
defined as objectionable and what is not is most easily observed in com-
mon images of reality provided by other media. Media becomes an
image of media. This means that mass media is caught in a feedback
loop where the images of reality provided today become the (mediated)

11
reality of tomorrow.
When mass media present similar images of reality, the combined
effect is that of illusionary objectivity. If something isn’t featured on
national television or printed in bold letters in the daily paper, can it re-
ally be true? If an idea is only presented by a minor group of deviants
and nowhere else, can it be of any value? You can’t agree with those
extremists, can you?

AT THE CROSSROADS OF DELUSION

The medialisation of our mental landscapes, the per default conform-
ism of mass media, the illusion of objectivity and the feed back loop of
non-objectionability, when put together has a strong normalising effect,
caused by the few-to-many media structure itself.
This raises the question whether or not such a reality is desireable.
These issues are all about the awareness and control of media structures.
This is not primarily a question about what the television company de-
cides to put on the air, but rather a question about the machinations
behind the shaping of consensus reality: do we accept structures that
shape our reality beyond our control or do we fight them?
Do we silently accept the provided images of reality or do we create
our own?

A CALL TO ARMS
We must remember that providers of mediated images are also caught
in the same net. Their position is a very limited one; all forms of acting
out of compliance with the mass media structure will cause immedi-
ate obliteration. (Yes, obliteration – mass media seldom features its own
mistakes, thus causing a consensual blind spot.)
So what can be done? Securing a position in the top of the pyramid
or trying to bend the mediated image into an image of one’s own liking
will not change the normalising structure that imposes images into your
mind. One solution might be the creation of alternative media struc-
tures, without the few-to-many distribution. Media structures where all
eyes are pointed elsewhere than at the top of the pyramid.
By creating media structures where people are allowed to participate
instead of spectate, a new world of co-operative reality shaping opens.
If we cannot or don’t want to take part in the consensus reality provided
through media images, we have to provide these images ourselves. We
must do this through structures that work on a one-to-one or many-
to-many principle rather than few-to-many. In this sense, participative
media equals the democratisation of reality.
LEO NORDWALL

12
Look around you: houses and streets, cars and concrete, places for people.
Everything you see is a construction, everything is a design by someone.
Think of the environments you move through during your daily life. Ask
yourself how much influence you have had on how these places look and
work. The answer is probably: None at all.

We have lost faith in a reality that has been defined and constructed for
us but not by us. It is time to deconstruct and reconstruct reality and
ourselves, with whatever means necessary.

13
In a time of change the feeling of an urgent necessity to hold on to a given identity may
arise. The roleplayer’s solution to handle such a pluralistic multitude is, on the contrary,
to roll with the waves, not standing as a pole in the middle of the stream where you
slowly erode. Thus, the roleplayer is prepared for postmodernity. Are you?

Sometimes the word ”postmodernism” is used just to signify our own

time, in which everything is in a flux, when politicians are overruled
by impenetrable power structures, religious and cultural pluralism is in
every little village and 100s of TV- and radio channels give you as many
life styles as they give you different kinds of soap.
But let’s start with modernity – what’s that? Modernity is a continua-
tion of the Enlightenment. The fundamental Enlightenment paradigm
is known as the representation paradigm. The idea is that you have the
self or the subject on the one hand, and the empirical or sensory world as
the object on the other, and all valid knowledge consists in making maps
of the empirical world, the single and simple ”pregiven” world. And if
the map is accurate, if it correctly represents, or corresponds with, the
empirical world, then that is ”truth”. This separation is referred to as
Cartesian dualism.
The simplest way to state what’s wrong with the mapping representa-
tion of ”truth”, is that it leaves out the mapmaker. When you think of
the world as something outside yourself, a thing to act upon, you make
it difficult to have e.g. an ecological view, since you don’t regard yourself
as part of the same system. But the mapmaker, that is the subject, the
self, didn’t just fall from heaven. It has its own characteristics, its own
structures, its own development, its own history – and all of those influ-
ence and govern what we will see, and what we can see, in the supposedly
”single” world just lying around. The self is up to its neck in needs and
backgrounds that determine just what it can see in the first place!
Spectator arts is a child of the Cartesian, modern paradigm where
the subject is split off from, different from the object. On the one hand
you have a piece of art, a painting, a book, a film, whatever – on the
other you have the spectator. The spectator is never involved, she is just
tickled. When art is defined by the art market it’s very difficult to produce

14
anything more than shortlived emotional kicks. That’s why the artists
of our time are forced to use more force, more violence, more sex, and
bigger and bigger loudspeakers to arouse the audience.

MY WORLD IS NOT YOUR WORLD

Based upon what the subject itself brings to the picture it will see the
world quite differently, more or less regardless of what is actually ”out
there” in some pregiven world.
For each subject the world looks different because the world is differ-
ent and this is the great postmodern revolution. The ”pictures” that you
see when you look at the ”world” depend in large measure not so much
on ”the world” as on yourself and your mental glasses.
What are the consequences of this postmodern view? One effect of
the postmodern attack on everything that is stable, is of course the fun-
damentalistic panic reaction. But to what question is fundamentalism
the wrong answer? That question is: How can you find a world view,
directions, morality when everything is in a flux? How to raise kids when
what’s right from one point of view is wrong from another? Are there
any absolute truths?
One absolute truth is evidently that there are no absolute truths. This
means that it is impossible to have a discussion about political, economi-

15
cal, social or religious issues without at first defining the terms that are to
be used. In the postmodern world every issue will turn into a question
of who is master of the agenda, who gets to define the problem – that
is: who’s got the power?
E.g. we’re not discussing if the American president is right or wrong
in his fight against terrorism. To be able to do that we must first decide
how to define terrorism: is it underdogs fighting against a militaristic
superpower, or fundamentalistic fanatics who wants to go medieval, or
poor people trying to make the rich recognise their legitimate needs?Then
we can tell if his tactics are right or wrong. And so on and so on for every
single question. It’s all about whose glasses are to rule.
So we have defined the postmodern paradigm as the insight that
everything is contextual, everything depends on everything, and wher-
ever you look the only thing you see is your opinion about what is there
to see. This is an experience that you get very vividly in participatory
arts, where you get to feel in your own body that reality is nothing but
what we collectively have agreed upon. That’s why some of us call it
”consensus reality”.
The world is not there to find anymore – it’s for you to define. The one
thing that is stable is the search for power to decide the agenda – which
means that the fundamentalists have got something right: now more than
ever power is the defining tool.
Since it is all about defining the world, setting the agenda, role-play-
ers have a definite advantage, because they are already used to define
their worlds – and this is not just a joke, this is an important point.

THE POINT ABOUT ART

Suppose art really is about something, that it’s not just entertainment.
Suppose art is to be a guiding light in a world of darkness. What kind
of art would you need then? You would need art that realizes that the
solution is on another level than the problem – you can’t solve problems made
by Cartesian dualism inside that paradigm, you have to get out of it. How?
The way out of the Cartesian paradigm is to engage in participatory
arts. Participatory arts are the ultimate postmodern form of expression,
since it in itself is promoting a nondualistic, anticartesian perspective.
This is done when the participant realizes that the experience she gets is
a product of her and her co-creators’ actions. The cartesian split between
creative producer and passive consumer is annihilated. As a spectator
you can live with many differing viewpoints at the same time – it’s all
in the head – as a participant you have to decide which one to live by.
Participation shows us what it means to live in a world where everybody
counts, where power to the people is acted out, not just talked about.

16
 In spectator arts you are placed in a situation where you can only
react. You’re once again back in childhood, subject to the wellmeaning
intention of others. Spectator arts are infantilising! Participatory arts are
for grown ups!
Participatory arts reclaim creativity for Everybody. The socially iso-
lated artist, the creative genius, was a product of modernistic individual-
ism. The creative community and the collective creating in participatory
arts is an expression of postmodernity. Modernity’s individualism was in
reality just something for an elect group, the elite. Participatory arts rein-
vent the basis of all liberation: You are the creator of your own world.

ELGE LARSSON
elge@interactingarts.org

17
 URBAN SAMURAI
From your lookout on the balcony you see
someone decamping on the roof across
the street. A backpack is rapidly filled
with a stormkitchen, cupola tent and
a thermos. The figure runs across
the roof, straight for the edge,
and throws itself over it. Its
a thirty-foot drop, and
you are ready to call
the undertaker
right away,
but there
is no need.
The fall is bro-
ken with a hand on
the drainpipe and a
foot against the wall, and
the nimble feet are suddenly
firmly on the ground. With a
quick turn around the corner
the moment has passed.
The city used to take all her en-
ergy – the strain and massive flood
of sensations became too much. Still,
she could not bring herself to leave this
teeming multitude. The only thing to do
was to find a way of extracting energy from
the city, as opposed to the other way around.
The urban samurai was born from this insight,
grew within the scream from free-fall down a
concrete wall, within the vault over a rusted-out
BMW. To the urban samurai, the city is no longer
devouring energy, it is the pulse that allows her to
live and act. She dances to the music of the machinery,
fully aware and with all senses ready for new impressions.
Those unable to hear the hidden rythm of the city are
doomed to become living dead, caught in the ratrace. She
talks at length of Zen and Le Parkour, and offers to teach you
some tricks.

18
 INTERACTIVIST

The city overwhelms it’s citizens with im-

pressions - and they defend themselves
with indifference. We know that shops are
for shopping, offices for working, living
rooms for television sets and schools for
conformity. In a public square rebuilt
into a mall, everything but shopping
has become illegal.
To the Interactivist, the city is a
battlefield. All of it seems like a fin-
ished construction, so cracks and rifts
that can accomodate new impres-
sions must be pulled open. By reclaim-
ing spaces and allowing them to become
places for reflection and interaction, the
Interactivist creates playfulness in a city
dense with shopping.
Reality is a game and everyone must re-
alise this unless they prefer being the chips
in this very game. The Interactivist tries to
identify the game rules and break them us-
ing any and all means necessary. She knows
that a reality in constant flux forces people
to think, analyze and find their own exits.
The tools are adbusting, performance art,
love and disinformation.

19
 ANARCHITECT
Out walking, you discover someone has planted tulips in a hole in the
asphalt. While contemplating this newly-created garden, you spot a man
clinging from a ladder. He is covering streetlights with blue and red
paint. Maps and drawings spill from his bag. When the last lightpost is
finished, he runs toward the galleria, eagerly rummaging through his
bag for the next tool of change.
A few years ago, the anarchitect discovered that he had grown weary
of the city, tired of its stagnation. Now you see him everywhere down
town, eyeing his map and mumbling over his blueprints. The anarchitect
has realized the city shapes people, just as people give shape to the city.
One way of reshaping people is, therefore, changing the city itself. His
toolbox contains everything that may come in handy: paints, spraycans,
chipboards, glass cutters and tulip bulbs. They build dwellings in street-
corners, hang wallpaper on bridge pylons, plant gardens and repaint
walls. Late at night, anarchitects converge in dimly lit cafés, making
wild plans. As long as the city and it inhabitants never grind to a halt,
everything is permitted. The
anarchitect is willing to help
other people who want to
alter their city. Don’t be
surprised if he gives you a
map, some street crayons,
a fence cutter and an
encouraging pat on the
shoulder.

20
 URBAN
EXPLORER

On the edge of the Yards, you

can see her looking down a
manhole. One hand holds a
flashlight shining brighter than
you thought possible for one that
size. One of her comrades is stan-
ding a ways off, talking through a
Com radio and keeping an eye on
the police station two blocks away.
They are Urban Explorers. People
who have come deep enough beneath
the city so as not to have a way back. For
them, there are descents, entrances, ex-
its everywhere. But the exits are rare, she
says, only a few have ever found them. Only
one thing is for certain – you can always go
further, deeper, onwards, onwards. To the
Urban Explorer the hidden crevices of the city
are enticing, she seeks the possibility of a new
public space only the brave will find their way
to; tunnels, roofs and old warehouses. At first,
there were planned expeditions late Saturday
nights, later she started coming home just in
time for a shower before school or work. Now,
the Explorer always has her backpack stuffed
with rugged clothes, dust shield and flashlight,
always ready if a new entrance to the other city
should appear. Buildings, unlocked doors be-
hind the cinema, the subway entrance just aro-
und the Biker clubhouse, when the adrenaline
starts pumping, it’s like a drug. Some explorers
close the doors behind them, warning you that
once you open the first hatch, you won’t be able
to stop. Others pass you a flashlight.

21
 NETPUNK
With the laptop as an extension of the will, she is constantly wirelessly
connected. Her fingers float like quicksilver across the keys, as she con-
nects to a server so she can conduct her attacks without any trace. Wait a
minute – that guy across the street doesn’t seem as interested in his paper,
anymore. Is he looking at me? Better shut down everything encrypted
and hack the next hotspot for pure access to the net. There isn’t
really a way to know if you are being monitored or not,
the only solution is being more paranoid than
your adversaries.
When she isn’t running networks or ex-
changing source code for the latest exploits
in security on IRC, she is proofreading
the latest book she scanned (liberated).
Films, Music or Software? The NetPunk
has access to everything you could pos-
sibly want, but is really more interested
in the principles of free information
than having the latest movies on her
hard drive. The few times you see
her around town is at night, wear-
ing combat pants and sunglasses,
with the laptop under her arm,
perhaps on her way to meet some
new contact at an all-night café.
The Net is its own universe, and
for those who know how to get
around in there, it is a sanctu-
ary as good as any. There you
can still find space to create
your own world.

22
 NOMAD
How the little backpack can hold all
of his worldly possessions, you never
could understand. It’s just as inex-
plicable as his constant access to ex-
pensive tickets. Unshaven and smell-
ing of sweat he boards yet another
train. This time bound for Madrid,
he says. The Nomad has tired of
being spoon-fed prearranged ex-
periences. He refuses to limit him-
self to well known environments
or to places that are deemed ‘safe’.
Regular contact with the same peo-
ple has no intrinsic value; The Nomad
needs something more. He cruises
around the cities of Europe, hitches
rides on cargo trucks, sleeps in railway
bathrooms. Having arrived somewhere,
he saunters along the boulevards and
seeks out the narrowest alleys.
The Nomad is constantly seeking new
connections, new ideas. Experiences
have become the most important thing,
never coming to a halt has become his
mantra. The search for an unexpected
meeting with a wholly new person con-
stantly drives him forward. Language is
not a problem anymore, there are always
ways of communicating. Since he came
back from Tibet last summer, he seems
to always know what people are going
to say before they say it. After China,
he stole your Wok pan, but the maps he
left behind are the basis of your inter-
rail trip next summer.

23
 CHAMELEON
Wait! That guy in the suit over there,
smiling as he exits the bank with his brief-
case, isn’t he the same guy who played
in the Punk band at the block party last
week, only he had on a leather jacket and
ripped jeans? His smile reminds me of
someone, no not only reminds, isn’t it
the spitting image of that girl you met at
the club last Friday? The shocking thing
about meeting the same person in three
different roles is that it violates one of the
strongest agrees in our society, that each
individual is one, and only one person. In
spite of different roles, we are expected to
have a ‘core’, consisting of sex, age, body
and a certain amount of personality.
The Chameleon refuses to have any
part of such an agreement. Instead, she
takes the liberty of being different peo-
ple at different times. Fraudulent, the
uncomprehending would say, but The
Chameleon knows better. Fraud can-
not exist without Truth, and as there
is no truth, everything is permitted for
him. With her wardrobe full of different
modes of dress, she glides freely between
the university, the anarchist café, the
meeting about the latest application for a
grant, and the break-in at the abandoned
factory. Everything is make-believe, and
as an actor, he thrives on being on stage.
Those who confess their faiths and choos-
es their sides burn themselves in too many
contexts for The Chameleons liking, she
would rather pick the fruits of all differ-
ent worlds to build his life in the city.

24